LAV 6.0

[Colin Parkinson]

two reasons:

1) fewer vehicles in a platoon (and similar restructuring elsewhere and upward) creates a division with considerably less vehicles which makes for a more agile division capable of more rapid deployment and redeployment. It also reduces the logistics burden on the division. The rationale that more of everything is always better is not necessarily true.

The platoon is not significantly weakened by losing a vehicle. With four LAV ISC you get at most 28 dismounts, no CUAS capability and no indirect fire capability. Restructured with only one ISC and two non turreted versions you have 25 dismounts plus an AD/CUAS component and a medium loitering munitions carrier.

2) a higher ratio of dismounts to people remaining in vehicles creates greater combat power on the ground. Vehicles that stay far enough forward to provide fire support become magnets for unpleasant fire. It is better to support dismounted troops with indirect fire, whether their own or through battalion mortars and artillery systems. The vehicles are better off to stay back in dead ground or whatever cover is available, from which they can provide air defence and indirect fire support (such as through loitering munitions)

The point here is that the LAV is not an IFV. It's an infantry transport vehicle for infantry that fights, or ought to fight, dismounted. The LAV ISC loses too much dismount space to the turret and keeps three people with the vehicle. A LAV without the turret can hold a crew of two and up to 9 dismounts.

Or so the theory goes.

and if your loaded IFV takes a hit and kill, wounds half the infantry aboard, your attack has now faltered, or it drives over a mine and is stuck halfway to the objective? Soft skin and AFV are going to be pretty much disposable in the next peer to peer conflict.

 

[Kirkhill]

and if your loaded IFV takes a hit and kill, wounds half the infantry aboard, your attack has now faltered, or it drives over a mine and is stuck halfway to the objective? Soft skin and AFV are going to be pretty much disposable in the next peer to peer conflict.

Two crew per vehicle and lots of robots.

Infantry will follow once the ground is secured by robots from robots.

 

[FJAG]

Does adopting a CUAS turret mean giving up Direct Fire Support?

I don't think it does, but admittedly a one man gunner v a two pers turret is less effective.

Because 34 (three sections, a wpns det, and Pl HQ) is relatively proven structure and fits our doctrine. Smaller for the sake of smaller or bigger for the sake of bigger would require some sort of justification and some explainer as to how you think the dismounts would fight (since the proposed structure does not map onto extant doctrine).

Where do 34 dismounts come from? Unless I'm mistaken the LAV ISC has room for 7 dismounts which gives you 28 at best unless people leave the turret only partially manned - And I doubt most platoons these days, or in Afghanistan, have 7 dismounts available anyway.

Doctrine is a living thing (when I started in this game a rifle section was the 11 folks that you could squeeze into a 3/4 ton or M113 and everyone swore that you couldn't do with less - but they had to.) Doctrine has been driven by two immutable things - the occupancy limits of the vehicles we've accepted and the vehicles' ballooning costs. The latter explains why we only have 6 mech battalions.

The question that I'm asking really has to do with getting better weapon systems to our platoons such as an integral AD/CUAS capability and heavier loitering munitions. There are two options - rip turrets off existing ICVs or buy new vehicles FFR'd for MOOG RIwPs which coincidentally provide more room for dismounts.

To me the latter is the better option as it allows for the distribution of existing ICVs further across the army providing for an initiative of adding in anywhere from 3 to 6 mech battalions depending on how you do things. Going to 3 vehs v 4 for the platoon keeps the coys and therefore the battalions smaller in number of vehicles but almost on a level with dismounts - 75% of the number of platoon vehicles but 25/28th (89%) of the platoon dismounts.

Just as a point for your consideration - Bill Owen in his book "Euclid's Army" proposes that the infantry platoon be reduced to 24 all ranks with three 8-man sections: a command section with an officer, a signaller, a medic, a forward observer, a sniper pair plus 2 others including a UAV operator; the two rifle sections with two fire teams each - one with a 7.62 GPMG or MAW the rest with pers weapons and the second team all with pers weapons and a 40mm grenade launcher. This is the dismount portion of the platoon and is vehicle agnostic. The need therefore is to transport 24 dismounts. He suggests a total of 10 vehicles - 3 per platoon and one for the company comd's team of eight dismounts. My configuration meets his requirement. The coy therefore is 80 dismounts and 24 veh crew. Owen suggests that a battalion might have four such companies. (for 40 coy vehs in total v the current 45 vehs)

While there is a modest veh saving, dismounts in the battalion go from roughly (28 x 3 + 7 = 91 per coy x 3 or) 273 per bn to (24 x 3 + 8 = 80 per coy x 4 or) 320 per bn

Note that with the dismounts being vehicle agnostic you could switch the LAVs out with Senators, ISVs or BVs etc and substitute the MOOG RIwP with the lightweight RIwP which can even be mounted on the ISV. Again, the key point here is we are not building a fleet of IFVs and that the aim is to maximize dismounts with Z-vehs that can add to the protection against expected threats.

 

[Kirkhill]

I don't think it does, but admittedly a one man gunner v a two pers turret is less effective.

Where do 34 dismounts come from? Unless I'm mistaken the LAV ISC has room for 7 dismounts which gives you 28 at best unless people leave the turret only partially manned - And I doubt most platoons these days, or in Afghanistan, have 7 dismounts available anyway.

Doctrine is a living thing (when I started in this game a rifle section was the 11 folks that you could squeeze into a 3/4 ton or M113 and everyone swore that you couldn't do with less - but they had to.) Doctrine has been driven by two immutable things - the occupancy limits of the vehicles we've accepted and the vehicles' ballooning costs. The latter explains why we only have 6 mech battalions.

The question that I'm asking really has to do with getting better weapon systems to our platoons such as an integral AD/CUAS capability and heavier loitering munitions. There are two options - rip turrets off existing ICVs or buy new vehicles FFR'd for MOOG RIwPs which coincidentally provide more room for dismounts.

To me the latter is the better option as it allows for the distribution of existing ICVs further across the army providing for an initiative of adding in anywhere from 3 to 6 mech battalions depending on how you do things. Going to 3 vehs v 4 for the platoon keeps the coys and therefore the battalions smaller in number of vehicles but almost on a level with dismounts - 75% of the number of platoon vehicles but 25/28th (89%) of the platoon dismounts.

Just as a point for your consideration - Bill Owen in his book "Euclid's Army" proposes that the infantry platoon be reduced to 24 all ranks with three 8-man sections: a command section with an officer, a signaller, a medic, a forward observer, a sniper pair plus 2 others including a UAV operator; the two rifle sections with two fire teams each - one with a 7.62 GPMG or MAW the rest with pers weapons and the second team all with pers weapons and a 40mm grenade launcher. This is the dismount portion of the platoon and is vehicle agnostic. The need therefore is to transport 24 dismounts. He suggests a total of 10 vehicles - 3 per platoon and one for the company comd's team of eight dismounts. My configuration meets his requirement. The coy therefore is 80 dismounts and 24 veh crew. Owen suggests that a battalion might have four such companies. (for 40 coy vehs in total v the current 45 vehs)

While there is a modest veh saving, dismounts in the battalion go from roughly (28 x 3 + 7 = 91 per coy x 3 or) 273 per bn to (24 x 3 + 8 = 80 per coy x 4 or) 320 per bn

Note that with the dismounts being vehicle agnostic you could switch the LAVs out with Senators, ISVs or BVs etc and substitute the MOOG RIwP with the lightweight RIwP which can even be mounted on the ISV. Again, the key point here is we are not building a fleet of IFVs and that the aim is to maximize dismounts with Z-vehs that can add to the protection against expected threats.

The saw-off is that you are only putting two people at risk and not three - and there is always AI to pick up some of the slack.

 

[KevinB]

What is the mission you need conducted by a Section and then also the Platoon and Company ?

Those answers will dictate how many people need to be in it, which will also drive vehicles and support side issues.


I don’t think wheeled vehicles make good assault vehicles. So I’ll see myself out out on the various LAV configurations possible.

 

[FJAG]

The saw-off is that you are only putting two people at risk and not three - and there is always AI to pick up some of the slack.

I bought a new car last May and I'm still learning all the AI features in it. The breadth of inexpensive sensors available these days is becoming mind boggling.

 

[KevinB]

I bought a new car last May and I'm still learning all the AI features in it. The breadth of inexpensive sensors available these days is becoming mind boggling.

I have a 2022 Suburban.
The sensors are pretty neat, but rain and high winds can make the lane change system think something is next to me, and any off-road usage has them pretty next to useless in a short period of time, heck even stuff that is pretty tame like range roads the dust renders them inoperable inside 5-10 min.

Light can also play tricks on the frontal collision avoidance system. Driving into the setting sun can be ‘alarming’ when cresting a hill.

While the passive sensors on Mil vehicles are significant more robust they are also not infallible by the elements.

 

[FJAG]

I have a 2022 Suburban.
The sensors are pretty neat, but rain and high winds can make the lane change system think something is next to me, and any off-road usage has them pretty next to useless in a short period of time, heck even stuff that is pretty tame like range roads the dust renders them inoperable inside 5-10 min.

Light can also play tricks on the frontal collision avoidance system. Driving into the setting sun can be ‘alarming’ when cresting a hill.

While the passive sensors on Mil vehicles are significant more robust they are also not infallible by the elements.

So far I've been a fair weather driver. The only interesting issue has been the lane following function which tends to veer you to the right when approaching an intersection and the curb/white line becomes a turn lane. I don't use that anymore.

I particulalry like the cruise control that adapts to a slower vehicle ahead of me but immediately accelerates when you pull out to pass. That's a keeper.

 

[Kirkhill]

What is the mission you need conducted by a Section and then also the Platoon and Company ?

Those answers will dictate how many people need to be in it, which will also drive vehicles and support side issues.


I don’t think wheeled vehicles make good assault vehicles. So I’ll see myself out out on the various LAV configurations possible.

So what level of prorection do you reckon is appropriate for a Troop Transporter?

Myself, I like the idea of resistant to shrapnel and blast, effective DFS to keep UAVs and local terrorists at bay, ie a nice compact RWS with passive sights and an M230 LF would suit.

The ability to get off road would be nice so more than 4 wheels.

And if that bridge is out ability to swim would be handy.

 

[GK .Dundas]

So what level of prorection do you reckon is appropriate for a Troop Transporter?

Myself, I like the idea of resistant to shrapnel and blast, effective DFS to keep UAVs and local terrorists at bay, ie a nice compact RWS with passive sights and an M230 LF would suit.

The ability to get off road would be nice so more than 4 wheels.

And if that bridge is out ability to swim would be handy.

I believe your looking for a modern MTLB ....and if I'm not mistaken the Finns have built one .